Talk:Saint Petersburg Soviet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Russia Portal Saint Petersburg Soviet is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] "Soviet of Workers' Deputies" and Voline's "Soviet of Workers' Delegates"

These important articles give valuable insight into the period, and we should not lose any details.

The article establishes that there was a soviet set up by Voline in January-February 1905 which was put down, and another by a slightly different name, "Soviet of Workers' Deputies" rather than Voline's "Soviet of Workers' Delegates" in october.

But if we are speaking of two different soviets in two adjacent periods then why speak of falsifying? It appears to the reader unlikely that there was any such intension since the gap between the two , differently named soviets was so large given all that was going on. Did the Bolshevics and Trotsky even know about the Jan-Feb soviet?

The isssue is who invented the first soviet as a form of organization. And there is no doubt bolsheviks knew. Volin was not a random unknown guy. Information about his activities was suppressed because Bolsheviks hated Anarchists with all fibres of their souls. I will look for supporting claims. `'Míkka 00:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW there was no big gap and in fact Khrustalev (Khrustalyov) was the Chairman of the second Soviet as well, i.e., there is a big probability that there was quite a cointinuity. But I am not an expert in this period to add the claim of continuity into the article. `'Míkka 00:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Volin's claim is quite sufficient. The only slight style / npov question now is that Voline and Trotsky's claims really should go in the Aftermath section, where we deal with claim and counter claim in the aftermath of the revolution. We have established Voline's priority claim by stating the Soviet's factual existance in January-February, and also the ecistance of a differently named Soviet which appeared in October, with, as you point out, some continuity from Volin's. In the opening sections, it could be argued, it would be better to stick to stating facts. As it is, this is largely what we do, so this is a matter of fine judgement. I think it would improve the article.

BTW I have tried to standardise his name to the first spelling, with an "e" - Voline. But perhaps should it be standardised to Volin? Perhaps for the English language edition we use which ever is standard in English?

Finally, I think Trotsky suggests in his book 1905 that he had not yet arrived when the second soviet was set up, and was only invited to attend at a second or later meeting. Andysoh 20:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the sentence:

"The Bolsheviks in their early articles wrote that the first soviets were "spontaneously created by workers", without any attribution to party affiliation[citation needed]. Later the official Soviet hagiography declared the Ivanovo Soviet to be the first Soviet in the history."

was duplicated, as it remained in the Aftermath section.

Andysoh 23:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)